How many of you have honestly read the bible?

liah

I've read it, quite a few times actually, and I thought the majority of other atheists would have also done so, but judging by some posts on this forum not a lot of you actually have. I think I can already predict who has, but I'll put up a poll as I'm curious as to the percentage.

For those of you who haven't, is there a reason why? Are you planning on reading it? Do you feel you need to to be able to effectively argue a case against faith, or are you doing well without having read it?

For those of you who have, what did you take away from it? Do you find it has helped you in arguments against those of faith/give you a better grasp of their frame of mind?

drkpower

Each to their own, of course, but why would an atheist necessarily want to read the Bible (or the Qu'ran/literature attached to other faiths)? Most of us kinda know the jist of what's in there. Not sure what it would add. And from the bits Ive browsed, its not really a page turner.

liah

drkpower wrote: »

Each to their own, of course, but why would an atheist necessarily want to read the Bible (or the Qu'ran/literature attached to other faiths)? Most of us kinda know the jist of what's in there. Not sure what it would add. And from the bits Ive browsed, its not really a page turner.

Depends on the type of atheist you are. Most find it's good to be educated on a religion, particularly a common one, especially if you're going to be arguing it.

NothingMan

I don't think the bible has any bearing on my Atheism, same way lord of the rings doesn't have any bearing on me not believing in hobits.

I suppose if someone was interested in theological studies or even history they may want to read it, but I don't have much interest in that kind of stuff.

I don't tend to try argue my lack of belief, I think when you describe God or Religion out loud Atheism seems the logical choice.

stevejazzx

I've read it alright - but not honestly.

Goduznt Xzst

I've read it. But my understanding of it has been dictated by the version of Christianity I was raised into.

I have no intention of ever reading it again, and I think using it to argue with a Christian is a folly. When you bring yourself down to that level they will beat you with their experience. Getting you into the quagmire of arguing over semantics is exactly where they want you.

Regardless, I do not need to read any supposed holy books to know that they all have their foundations built in sand. If they can get to the point of putting forward a convincing argument for Deism I'll at least entertain their notions of Theism and the supposed verisimilitude of their religions dogmas. As it stands they have a veritable mountain of evidence to produce before, in my opinion, any attention in the least should be given to their claimed holy scripts.

bnt

I read the whole thing as a teenager - for no particular reason other than "maybe I should". I think most of it went over my head, but I remember thinking it was much like other fantasy books I'd read. It wasn't any more "real" than The Lord of the Rings, which I'd also read by then.

nozzferrahhtoo

Had it read to me in primary school (8-12), one story from it per day. It was not until age 12/13ish it dawned on me people actually believed it and it was not just Mr. Byrne's (my teacher) story time for us kids.

Read it myself over teenage years, particularly latter years.

Re-read parts of it periodically, most recent being while staying in a hotel last new years area.

I can think of many arguments to suggest anyone read it. Random examples: Some to do with religion (atheists, known thy enemy etc etc) some cultural (always feel bad knowing nothing about what the majority around me are talking about) and some just to do with literary and historical interest (know the future by first learning the past).

That list is not exhaustive, nor is the amount on which I can expound on each of the 3.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

fatmammycat

Read it and it lessoned any residual faith I might ever have had. I have read it more than once actually. It is better to know what you reject and why you reject it than to blindly follow.

Hellm0

I have, in the past, read -parts- of the bible, however I cannot claim to have read it front to back. I can however claim to have eaten several pages, which I feel gave me a greater understanding of the content therein. The minimal nutrition I gathered from those pages was also quite helpful.

ShooterSF

I've read parts and had some read to me during my school days. I don't think I'd ever plan to read it cover to cover even over multiple sittings. I don't see it as necessary to strengthen one's atheism after all I haven't read the Qu'ran (sp?) either.

MrPudding

I read it in my earaly teens, kind of though I should as I was supposed to be a christian. Have to say I did not have any great revelation. Having read plenty of posts on this and the other forum about this subject, I think this was due to my blood pumping organ not be open or something... not too sure about that.

MrP

nozzferrahhtoo

By the way:

How many of you have honestly read the bible?

How does one dishonestly read a book? Do you read it while singing "Ive got the biggest willy in ireland" or something (or in my case singing "I dont")

GLaDOS

Never read it, don't plan on. I don't need to read it to know hat its is a completely unreliable source and that's all I really need in arguaing religion.

That and the fact I find it deathly boring.

drkpower

liah wrote: »

Depends on the type of atheist you are. Most find it's good to be educated on a religion, particularly a common one, especially if you're going to be arguing it.

I'm the type of atheist who doesnt really care what other people believe, but who doesnt want their beliefs to dictate societal policy. The Bible is irrelevent to that particular issue.

But of course (almost) all knowledge is good, and reading books is good too, but an in-depth knowledge of the Bible is not a pre-requisite to discussions on the presence of a God or the merits/demerits of religon.

seamus

I'm not a massive fan of fiction tbh.

Turtwig

Grew up listening to well selected passages from it, started my own endeavour into reading it out of sheer honesty and dedication. So from that I guess you can conclude that I honestly read the bible then.

Eh, not quite.
I started reading it but realised that I simply could not make head nor tail of any of it, so I started playing with magnets instead -guess that was when my live long love of the sciences began. I continued to read the bible but my interest was waning and, well, naturally I began to question it and I became more and more surprised at how bad some of the answers I was getting back from other people including the PP were.

robindch

liah wrote: »

For those of you who have, what did you take away from it?

That it's a work of largely derivative fiction, elegant and thoughtful in a few places, unclear or bonkers in many more.

liah wrote: »

Do you find it has helped you in arguments against those of faith/give you a better grasp of their frame of mind?

No, because religious belief proceeds in the main from the pre-existing contents of peoples' minds, and not from the contents of religious texts which do little more than just give a self-legitimizing form to what's there already.

PDN

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, it's not necessary. But your arguments might carry more weight if you actually understand what the concept of the immaculate conception is, and that it has nothing to do with such claims.

liah

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

By the way:



How does one dishonestly read a book? Do you read it while singing "Ive got the biggest willy in ireland" or something (or in my case singing "I dont")

By honestly I mean have you read the whole thing as a book rather than just passages here and there.

poisonated

I started it but I flicked to the end and ruined it for me.Where did I hear that I don't remember but it was funny at the time,ha probably not so much at the moment.

No I've read bits of it.Some of it is absolutely rediculas.I think I read 1 part where it said that you will go to hell if you work on Sunday.That being said,I do have an underlying belief in God.

Dave!

I've read parts of it when for example arguing about a particular aspect of Christianity, like homosexuality, misogyny, or whatever. I don't have any particular desire to read it from cover to cover.

Pretty much any of the reasons/arguments I subscribe to for lack of belief are applicable to all creeds. I don't really feel strongly about Christianity in particular, so don't have any reason to delve any deeper into writings on it.

Ickle Magoo

I haven't read the adult version but I read the children's version cover to cover many times when I was much younger. It hasn't so much given me a base to argue against others' faith but it was certainly important in cementing my lack of.

Sea Sharp

I know it well enough to be able to correct christians who think they know the bible.

If you want to find a common ground with a Christian, it helps if you can demonstrate that you know and can quote scriptures, it helps because they can see that you understand the bible.

Generally speaking, trash talking about a Christian's intelligence without knowing anything about the book that they base their beliefs on doesn't achieve much.
The choice of believing in god doesn't automatically mean that a person is stupid. It just means that they abide by a system of beliefs that are all fundamentally flawed.

Flamed Diving

I would like to put this question to actual Christians, but I doubt the honesty of responses.

Turtwig

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I would like to put this question to actual Christians, but I doubt the honesty of responses.

Post it in AH:D

Lab_Mouse

I generaly avoid ****e books,the bible being one of them.

the_syco

I like lots of fiction boks, but not this one.

Red Hand

The old testament, I've read cause I liked the imagery..."eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" and suchlike. The New Testament, I've only knowledge from when I used to go to mass.

Galvasean

Used to read large chunks of it to inform myself on certain issues. However, I have not read it fully back to back and have no real intention to in the forseeable future.

The Mad Hatter

I haven't read it, but I'd consider myself to be fairly familiar with it simply by having paid attention at school.

I don't think my ability to appreciate literature has suffered through my absence of deep familiarity with it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yep, that's what he's saying:p
Nothing to do with the Virgin Birth.

PDN

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's no more snotty than when someone corrects a theist for confusing abiogenesis with evolution.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which has nothing to do with the Bible btw, is that Mary was conceived by normal means (sperm, ovum, embryo etc) but without original sin.

It is unconnected with the virgin birth, Most Christians who accept the virgin birth reject the idea of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

when someone corrects a theist for confusing abiogenesis with evolution.

Does every correction have to be made with a reference to THAT thread?:P

robindch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The "immaculate conception" is the belief that Mary was not tainted by the ritual impurity of original sin at birth and was therefore a fitting vessel into which the holy ghost could pour his life-force. And, thereby, create Jesus without sex (also viewed as ritually impure).

Lots of people, including many who think they hold the correct beliefs on the topic(s), continually mix up "immaculate conception" and "virgin birth".

They're only linked by the requirement of the religion to assert ritual purity as often as possible.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It presupposes a normal birth just that the mammy was free of original sin.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PDN

donegalfella wrote: »

Yes, but I haven't said anything about the virgin birth.

donegalfella in Post #9 wrote:

The theist is reduced to arguing against this elementary biological fact when he claims that, on various occasions, per the Bible, human beings were created directly by a supreme being, arose from the rib of another human, or came into existence in utero without the introduction of semen.

It is not necessary to study the theology of the immaculate conception to argue against such claims.

Apologies, I was assuming that that "in utero without the introduction of semen" was referring to the virgin birth. Obviously you were taking about something else. My bad.

Zillah

I've read different bits and pieces of it at different times. Same with the Koran. I found both to be monumentally uninteresting and have no intention of wasting that much time on the deranged ramblings of ignorant middle eastern dead people. It is far more efficient to read trustworthy summaries.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eoin5

I read the first few pages again there lately. Its not a book I can take seriously anymore, its too all over the place. Dont think I made it past ten pages without imagining what the lolcat version of it would be like.

Sam Vimes

eoin5 wrote: »

I read the first few pages again there lately. Its not a book I can take seriously anymore, its too all over the place. Dont think I made it past ten pages without imagining what the lolcat version of it would be like.

Imagine no more: http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Rev Hellfire

I'm sure most people are familar with it, after all with the religious connection with education in this country most people would have been exposed to it in one form or another.

As for reading it in detail. Well lets put it like this I don't need to stick my arm into a furnace to understand that it will be burnt, a cursory look at the item in question will give me an understanding as to what to expect.

The same is true of the bible.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I would like to put this question to actual Christians, but I doubt the honesty of responses.

Sure.

I read the Bible straight through from March 2007 to December 2007. That was the first time I read the Bible straight through, I had tried to read it before that point but I gave up in the middle of Genesis on most attempts.

I read the New Testament straight through last summer and through the Torah, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.

It's a book that I find I need to read relatively regularly in order to maintain a good understanding of it. Obviously, I'm still very much growing in my faith so there is really no better way to build it up than learning more about it.

When I don't read straight through, I often just flick through certain books.

Generally in the midst I'd read a few Christian books, but that isn't always the case.

5uspect

If you want to spare yourself some pain have a look at the Brick Testament.

Dades

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have to say I think you are scrambling here to cover up the common misconception you held about the immaculate conception. Your protests don't convince me.

I was called on it myself a year or two back, and I suspect most supposed "catholics" would be mistaken about it two.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Sure.

I read the Bible straight through from March 2007 to December 2007. That was the first time I read the Bible straight through, I had tried to read it before that point but I gave up in the middle of Genesis on most attempts.

I read the New Testament straight through last summer and through the Torah, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.

It's a book that I find I need to read relatively regularly in order to maintain a good understanding of it. Obviously, I'm still very much growing in my faith so there is really no better way to build it up than learning more about it.

When I don't read straight through, I often just flick through certain books.

Generally in the midst I'd read a few Christian books, but that isn't always the case.

Me too, I read it through when I first became a Christian, and have done so several times since.

But Jakkass and I both might be telling lies in Flamed Diving's eyes since we are Christians and therefore cannot be trusted to answer honestly

Permabear

This post has been deleted.